This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cetaceans, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CetaceansWikipedia:WikiProject CetaceansTemplate:WikiProject CetaceansCetaceans articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I don't see why this invalid species warrants its own article. The hype about it in some corners of the internet has no scientific justification, and should not be reinforced here. This is not a valid species, the fossils probably don't even all belong to a single taxon, and there is nothing significant about them. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 17:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
This article isn't necessary; fossil species are typically covered in an article about the genus. Plantdrew (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
OK, glad to see someone agrees. This article is especially unnecessary because it is not even close to being a valid species. I'm planning on redirecting this page to Balaenoptera but I want to see if there is any objections first. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 03:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
